Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grog" data-source="post: 2983045" data-attributes="member: 6183">The problem with this analysis is that game costs aren't based on development costs. They're based on market forces - what consumers are willing and able to pay for them. Don't you think that if EA could get away with selling games for $80, they would, regardless of how much they cost to develop?The reason game companies aren't selling games for $80 (and won't be selling games for $80) is that they'd lose too many sales, resulting in lower profits. An increase from $60 to $80 would be a one-third increase in price, which would give compaines a one-third increase in profit per game. However, if they hiked the prices to $80, their sales would drop by more than one-third, meaning they would lose money. And the game companies know this - they spend millions of dollars on market research to find these things out.I'm quite certain that Final Fantasy X cost Square a LOT more money to develop than The Bouncer did. Yet they didn't sell FFX for a higher price than The Bouncer. They sold for the same price, because that was the ideal price point for video games.This is why games with high development costs are such a big risk for companies - because they can't recoup the cost by selling the game for a higher price. They have to hope that the game will sell lots of copies, thereby generating enough revenue to pay the development costs and turn a profit.And this is why we won't see $80 PS3 games - because the market won't support a price point that high, and Sony and their developers know this.</blockquote>

Verification